Research supports a new approach to counting CO2 emissions

Jul 16, 2013

(Phys.org) —Researchers have called for a system of carbon emission assessments that reflect better the true contribution of each emitting nation to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and promote preservation of forests, particularly in tropical regions.

Ecosystems, mainly forest and oceans, remove around 54 per cent of CO2 emitted by deforestation and fossil fuel combustion each year. The concentration of atmospheric CO2 would increase more than twice as fast as observed if it were not for these natural sinks.

Scientists suggest in a pioneering study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change that national climate change policies could consider the contribution of each emitting region to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and place a value on regional ecosystems or sinks that absorb the CO2.

Co-author and Executive-Director of the Global Carbon Project, CSIRO's Dr Pep Canadell, said that for some time there have been discussions about how to attribute the build-up of atmospheric CO2 between developed countries like Australia, the US and Japan, and developing countries in Asia, Africa and South America. These studies did not consider land and ocean carbon sinks.

Dr Canadell said that research "tracked", through modelling, the origin and fate of CO2 molecules emitted from fossil fuels and deforestation to determine their ultimate contribution to the growth in atmospheric CO2 and to the enhancement of carbon sinks.

"We show that developed countries are responsible for over 80 per cent of atmospheric CO2 from human activities since 1850 but the share attributed to the developing world is rapidly increasing.

"Countries and their CO2 emissions also contribute to the creation of CO2 sinks, however, through reforestation and the fertilisation effect of atmospheric CO2 and nitrogen deposition on plant growth. We find, for instance, that more than half of the emissions from African and Latin American countries since 1850 have been offset by their own land carbon sinks."

The study also reveals that not only nations' own carbon sinks are important but also that emissions from developed countries since 1850 have created additional sinks in tropical regions equivalent to 13 years worth of their own emissions (at current levels). The maintenance of these carbon-accumulating tropical forests constitutes a massive sink service from tropical developing nations to developed nations.

Dr Canadell said that carbon accounting systems are human inventions to explore different ways to attribute responsibilities for the growth of atmospheric CO2 and the level of intervention necessary for a given climate stabilisation scenario. "The broader questions of who is responsible for what and who owes what to whom are judgments beyond science, though they are informed by the science," he said.

This study shows how a regionalised attribution of land and ocean carbon sinks, in addition to carbon emissions, alters the picture by accounting for the "sink service" provided by regions that are large absorbers of CO2. This approach can inform policy development that leads to the maintenance and enhancement of the 'sink service' between nations.

Dr Canadell said decreasing the risk of dangerous climate change requires a decline in future emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere and ultimately requires the complete decarbonisation of the energy system.

The paper was prepared for the Global Carbon Project, a joint initiative of several international research organisations, to track and analyse the interactions among the carbon cycle, human activities and the climate system.

The world's established forests remove 2.4 billion tonnes of carbon per year from the atmosphere  equivalent to one third of current annual fossil fuel emissions  according to new research published in the journal ...

You are walking through the bush when you see an enormous tree trunk, tens of metres long, lying across the forest floor. Imagine you and several dozen friends lifting it by hand. Now you've literally grasped ...

Earth's oceans, forests and other ecosystems continue to soak up about half the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, even as those emissions have increased, according to a study ...

A climate model accounting for the carbon dioxide (CO2) released into our atmosphere before the industrial revolution has been used to show the detrimental effect of carbon emissions on global temperature in the long-term. ...

Every summer, tens of thousands of people across Australia revel in live outdoor music, staying for a day or pitching their tents for a weekend. When the music dies, however, what's left may be less appealing ...

Extensive worldwide changes in the timing of leaf activity over the past few decades—which may have significant ecological and atmospheric consequences—have been revealed by a University of Otago, New ...

A new study says a record drought that ravaged Syria in 2006-2010 was likely stoked by ongoing manmade climate change, and that the drought may have helped propel the 2011 Syrian uprising. Researchers say ...

Intensified land-use, sewage discharge, and climate change have likely favored disproportionate development of harmful algae in freshwaters. A new study found that blooms of one type of harmful algae, called cyanobacteria, ...

User comments : 17

"The broader questions of who is responsible for what and who owes what to whom are judgments beyond science, though they are informed by the science," he said.

That is, of course, so that the politicians can redistribute wealth as they want to. Providing credits to developing nations for their plants and water resources allows justification for a larger distribution to them from developed nations.

I really like this one:

The study also reveals that not only nations' own carbon sinks are important but also that emissions from developed countries since 1850 have created additional sinks in tropical regions equivalent to 13 years worth of their own emissions (at current levels). The maintenance of these carbon-accumulating tropical forests constitutes a massive sink service from tropical developing nations to developed nations.

This basically eliminates any limit on transfer of wealth from developed to undeveloped nations.

Dogbert: If there is a global problem of any kind that has to be addressed and it costs money and resources, how do you go about doing it? Are you proposing that the citizens of island nations with dramatically reduced standards of living pay the same as I should? How about African nations? I make more in a day than most of their citizens do in a month and I am not wealthy by any standard.

There is a difference between an arbitrary redistribution of wealth and solving problems by the most efficient means.

Please explain to me how you would go about solving the problem of global warming due to increased CO2 without expecting more resources from those countries that have them. Thank you in advance for your explanation.

You presume incorrectly that the redistribution of wealth is simply the wealthy nations paying to fix the planet because the poor nations cannot. Certainly, nation to nation redistribution is a part of it, but the transfer does nothing to reduce the CO2 being produced. It simply charges the CO2 producers and sends the money to poor nations. Then there is the redistribution within a country as Australia did with their carbon tax -- used it for social programs in Australia. Again, this redistribution did nothing to reduce CO2 production.

The redistribution of wealth was, is and will continue to be the motivation for all this hype about CO2. The socialists have found a formula which worked to redistribute wealth and they are unwilling to allow facts to get in the way.

Please explain to me how you would go about solving the problem of global warming due to increased CO2

1) What we are doing now is not solving your problem so I fail to see how I am supposed to solve it for you.2) You presume that climate change is due to CO2.3) You further presume that climate change is caused by human beings.4) You further presume that we need to 'fix' this.5) You further presume that we are able to affect global temperature in a significant way.

I do not agree with all your presumptions. Climate changes and has changed when man did not even exist. I find increasing temperatures far preferable to declining temperatures as we can produce more food with increased temperatures (land at higher latitudes thawing, etc.) and colder temperatures tend to reduce food production.

Our real problem it uncontrolled population -- but no one will address that problem since it does nothing to further the socialist agenda.

Hoama,Why don't you stop? Saying "I don't like what you are saying, go away" is spam.

Pointing out when science is being misused to promote a political agenda is not spam. It is simply noting what is happening.

You seem to want to promote the political agenda. You certainly may. And I will point out that it is a political agenda.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence. One wearies of your constant pecking at one aspect of a subject like an insane woodpecker looking for a grub in a block of concrete.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence. One wearies of your constant pecking at one aspect of a subject like an insane woodpecker looking for a grub in a block of concrete.

The liberal always resorts to personal attack. When unable to support his position, the liberal hides behind innuendo and hatred.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence. One wearies of your constant pecking at one aspect of a subject like an insane woodpecker looking for a grub in a block of concrete.

The liberal always resorts to personal attack. When unable to support his position, the liberal hides behind innuendo and hatred.

It's a time saving response to zombie talking points from people who are not willing to engage in mature, honest discussion, and resort to projection.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence. One wearies of your constant pecking at one aspect of a subject like an insane woodpecker looking for a grub in a block of concrete.

The liberal always resorts to personal attack. When unable to support his position, the liberal hides behind innuendo and hatred.

A prudent person does not waste his efforts on fools errands such as attempting to engage in rational discourse with the likes of you.

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.

Javascript is currently disabled in your web browser. For full site functionality, it is necessary to enable Javascript.
In order to enable it, please see these instructions.